The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Why do most Brtish prime ministers go to Oxford instead of Cambridge?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by lyranew
Small point which doesn't affect the substance of what you're saying - Farage was educated at Dulwich college (one of the most prestigious private schools in the country) and his father was a banker. Perhaps he isn't as upperclass as Cameron or Osborne, but he's certainly no 'man of the people' either.


Indeed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 21
Avatar for kendo9
kendo9
16
Original post by theperformer
Since WWII, besides two PM's, all of them attended Oxford over Cambridge, and I'm not sure why this is?

Discuss.


I believe most of them would have studied PPE at oxford. This is probably better for a prime minister than the political courses at Cambridge.
Because Cambridge has more of a science focus than Oxford. With the notable exception of Thatcher scientists dont tend to become PM.

Why does Camridge boast more Nobel prizes?
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 23
Avatar for SH0405
SH0405
15
Original post by DMcGovern
Why is it that all UK PM's have attended Oxford or Cambridge? It'd be more representational of the government to have younger people who didn't go to private schools like Eton and went to universities like Exeter or Nottingham, and not the minority upper class, privately educated, Oxford/Cambridge old guys in their 40s/50s!
So why does it matter to you that the previous upper class Prime Ministers went to Oxford or Cambridge? We should have younger women and guys from working class/middle class backgrounds that know and understand the needs of the 99%.


I think it's better to have a very well-educated person running the country. Being Prime Minister actually involves cognitive aspects and duties that are often intellectually taxing. Essentially, the decision-making process - regardless of party - of a Prime Minister has wider implications that the average citizen might realise.

Another reason is aspiration and confidence. I experience those two feelings in a far greater sense than I would with someone from a "working class/middle class background" because, from a well-educated Prime Minister, confidence in him or her tends to come more easily. The aspiration aspect relates to the fact that I aspire less to someone who is on the same level as me as it were, which may be the case for much of "the 99%". The whole notion of aspiration is to look up to someone, which is difficult if the person running the country is Joe Bloggs from across the street.

I'm not saying that Prime Ministers should have to have gone to Oxbridge (I'm sure there will be one from Warwick one day :smile:), but that they should be very well-educated. What are the two UK institutions where this is fulfilled to the highest level? The universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by lyranew
Small point which doesn't affect the substance of what you're saying - Farage was educated at Dulwich college (one of the most prestigious private schools in the country) and his father was a banker. Perhaps he isn't as upperclass as Cameron or Osborne, but he's certainly no 'man of the people' either.


Ok Farage was a bad example, but if you look at people like Corbyn and compare them to people like Cameron, it just shows you how representative parties are of the people.
Original post by SH0405
I think it's better to have a very well-educated person running the country. Being Prime Minister actually involves cognitive aspects and duties that are often intellectually taxing. Essentially, the decision-making process - regardless of party - of a Prime Minister has wider implications that the average citizen might realise.

Another reason is aspiration and confidence. I experience those two feelings in a far greater sense than I would with someone from a "working class/middle class background" because, from a well-educated Prime Minister, confidence in him or her tends to come more easily. The aspiration aspect relates to the fact that I aspire less to someone who is on the same level as me as it were, which may be the case for much of "the 99%". The whole notion of aspiration is to look up to someone, which is difficult if the person running the country is Joe Bloggs from across the street.

I'm not saying that Prime Ministers should have to have gone to Oxbridge (I'm sure there will be one from Warwick one day :smile:), but that they should be very well-educated. What are the two UK institutions where this is fulfilled to the highest level? The universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.


That's actually a good point, so I'll amend mine - we should have more MPs that are from working/middle class backgrounds that understand what it's like to be one of the people and know what they want - I doubt anyone wants to get rid of the NHS and privatise all of our industries apart from the Tory party - a poll found that over 80% of people wanted to keep the NHS, yet here come the Tories.
Is just like to add to this discussion that working class people are by no means stupid. They just haven't been exposed to the same opportunities because mummy and daddy can't afford to pay for expensive schools and tutors.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Oxford Union must have something to do with it. Interestingly, of the 26 PMs Oxford has produced, half of them went to Christ Church College. Would like to know why.
IMO the main reason must be PPE. Cambridge now has HSPS, and does obviously have an economics course, but everybody recognises that a broad understanding of politics is vital to a prime minister and such a thing categorically cannot be developed without an intimate understanding of economics also.

Therefore, Cambridge just has never really had a course suitable - or as suitable (except maybe Classics, but still I'd bet there are plenty of Cambridge Classics Alumni in the civil service, as opposed to being Ministers).
Their UMS wasn't high enough lol
Original post by theperformer
Since WWII, besides two PM's, all of them attended Oxford over Cambridge, and I'm not sure why this is?

Discuss.


Cambridge is quite late with an coherent Labour club (early 1970s). At this point it is appropriate to make comments about Soviet spies. By that point Oxford had produced two Labour prime Ministers.

Cambridge's golden generation of Conservative politicians from the 1950s to early 1960s- Biffen, Brittan, Clarke, Fowler, Gummer, Howe, Howard, Hurd, Lamont, Nott, StJohn Stevas are mainstays of Thatcher's cabinet along with earlier figures like Whitelaw and later ones like Mellor and Portillo. Obviously Major succeeded Thatcher and then lost to Blair and their chances were gone.

There is a Cambridge candidate in every Tory leadership election from 1963 except the two "stalking horse" years of 1989 when Oxonian Anthony Mayer stood against Oxonian Margaret Thatcher and 1995 when Oxonian Redwood ran against Major..

1963 (unofficial) Butler
1965 Powell
1975 Whitelaw
1989 none
1990 Hurd
1995 none
1997 Clarke, Howard and Lilley
2001 Clarke and Portillo
2003 Howard
2005 Clarke

PS No-one has pointed out that four not two PMs since WWII did not attend either Oxford or Cambridge:-

Churchill 1951-5, Callaghan 1976-9, Major 1990-7, Brown 2008-10
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cleverasvoltaire
Oxbridge attracts the most intelligent people, surely it's a good thing our PMs tend to go there?
Both Thatcher and Major were working class, Major didn't go to university and Thatcher won a scholarship. And guess what- both Tories. Funny, eh?

I know this is old, but Thatcher was certainly not working class. She was lower middle.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you